Mariacoccus marianus (Cockerell) Chris J. Hodgson & Douglas J. Williams, 2018

Chris J. Hodgson & Douglas J. Williams, 2018, Revision of the soft scale genus Paralecanium (Hemiptera: Coccomorpha: Coccidae) with the introduction of three new genera and twenty new species, Zootaxa 4443 (1), pp. 1-162 : 140-142

Mariacoccus marianus (Cockerell) comb. n.

( Fig. 59 )

Paralecanium marianum Cockerell, 1902 , 455. Type data: BRAZIL, Rio de Janeiro State, Maria , on undetermined tree. Syntypes, female. Type depository: USNM, Washington, District of Columbia, U.S.A.

Lecanium lizeri Fonseca 1957 , 133. Type data: BRAZIL: São Paulo, Campinas, on coffee . Syntypes, female. Type depository: Museu de Zoologia, Universidade de São Paulo, São Paulo, Brazil. Syn. n.

Coccus lizeri (Fonseca) ; Ben-Dov 1993, 80. Change of combination

Material examined. Lectotype f and paralectotype f (here designated): Right label: Paralecanium / Mesolecanium / marianum / Ckll. TYPE / leaves of undetermined tree / Maria . State of / Rio de Janeiro / Brazil / (C. Monira) ( USNM, #14579): 1/2adff (p, lectotype (left-hand specimen) slightly better cleared than paralectotype, both split longitudinally; most legs and antennae missing). This slide appears to constitute all the type material.

Note. The following description is based on both specimens. Because of their poor condition, there is a high degree of uncertainty about some details but it is believed that the basic structure is as described.

Unmounted material. “Long-oval, a little over 4 mm long and 2 wide, shining red-brown, strongly pitted; back obtusely longitudinally keeled. Marginal area with some very thin easily deciduous wax” ( Cockerell, 1902: 455).

Slide-mounted adult female. Body oval, probably quite convex in life. Anal cleft apparently not fused but with parallel margins, about 1/7th total body length. Length 3.5–4.0 mm, width 2.75 mm.

Dorsum. Derm sclerotised, with moderately large clear areolations (each about 15–25 µm wide at most) present over all of dorsum; also with a submarginal band of smaller, clear areolations between them and nearer the margin, these becoming absent more medially; medially also with almost round sclerotised areas each with a darker margin; derm otherwise fairly evenly sclerotised, without radial rays from either stigmatic clefts or margin. Abdominal clear areas absent. Dorsal setae possibly absent (one possible seta detected but this could not be relocated). Preopercular pores considered to be present, in a line of about 4 just anterior to anal plates, each appearing as a round spot about 8 µm wide. Small pores, each about 2.0–2.5 µm wide, possibly microducts, present throughout. Most median and submedian areolations with a central pore, each about 1.5 µm wide. Dorsal tubular ducts absent. A single submarginal tubercle noted on one side of one specimen. Anal plates together rather quadrate, with posterior margins subequal in length to anterior margins; each plate with 3 small setose setae and a single larger fimbriate seta, about 20 µm long, on apex; each plate 132–145 µm long, 65–68 µm wide. Anogenital fold without setae on anterior margin but with 1 seta on posterior end of each lateral margin. Anal ring with 6 setae, each about 200–210 µm long; anal tube shorter than length of anal plates.

Margin. Without marginal ornamentation. Marginal setae each with a broadly fimbriate apex, 15–20 µm long and up to 12 µm wide; with 77–79 setae on head between anterior stigmatic clefts; each side with 19–22 between clefts and 52–54 on abdomen. Stigmatic clefts quite deep, each U-shaped, with more or less parallel margins, inner margin not sclerotised, and with 3 stigmatic spines; all median setae missing but lateral setae broad basally, narrowing to a blunt apex, each 8–12 µm long. Eyespots clearly displaced from margin by about twice eye-socket width; greatest width of each socket about 60–65 µm, diamater of each lens perhaps 25 µm.

Venter. Derm membranous. Multilocular disc-pores frequent on either side of genital opening and on preceding segment only, with perhaps 7 on each side in both segments. Spiracular disc-pores present in a band 1–2 pores wide between margin and each spiracle, with about 20–23 in each band. Ventral microducts small, distribution unclear. Ventral tubular ducts present, of 3 types: (i) ducts with outer and inner ductule equally broad and of about the same length (both about 11–13 µm long), with a glandular inner end; present in 5 groups on each side as follows: with a group just mesad to each antenna, a group just posterior to each coxa and a group submedially on each side of (about) abdominal segment II; (ii) somewhat similar-sized ducts but with a narrower inner ductule (perhaps half width of outer ductule) and a large glandular inner end, present singly or in pairs submedially in abdominal segments VII, VI and V; and (iii) smaller ducts, each with a narrow inner ductule with a well-developed glandular inner end, apparently occasional (only 2 noted!) submedially in other abdominal segments. Ventral setae very hard to detect but with long preanal seta in segments VII (each about 100 µm long) and VI (about 35 µm long); each side with 4 pairs of interantennal setae and about 8 submarginal setae between stigmatic clefts. Antennae welldeveloped, each with 7 distinct segments; total length about 385 µm; setal distribution normal except segment III with a single seta. Clypeolabral shield about 115 [105] µm long; no clypeal setae noted. Spiracles each with an oval spiracular sclerotisation: anterior peritremes each 26–36 µm wide, posterior peritremes 35–43 µm wide. Legs well developed, with a distinct tibio-tarsal articulatory sclerosis; dimensions of metathoracic leg (µm): coxa 120; trochanter + femur 180; tibia 140; tarsus 80; claw 18; tarsal digitules all missing; claw digitules both broad; claw probably without a denticle; setal distribution: coxa 5 or 6, trochanter 1; femur 1, tibia 2 or 3, tarsus 3.

Comments. Through the kindness of Dr T. Kondo (CORPOICA, Columbia), we received a copy of a paper by Granara de Willink et al. (2010), which describes and illustrates the adult female of Coccus lizeri (Fonseca) . Their description and illustrations are extremely similar to those of M. marianus (Cockerell) provided here, differing only in a few particulars. They describe or illustrate the following (character-states on M. marianus in brackets): (i) dorsal setae throughout the dorsum (not definitely located due to the poor condition of the slides); (ii) 4 pairs of submarginal dorsal tubercles, with 1 pair on the head, 1 on the thorax and 2 pairs on the abdomen (only 1 tubercle located on one side of one of the specimens); (iii) the ano-genital fold with setae along both the anterior and lateral margins (only a single seta found on each lateral margin), and (iv) multilocular disc-pores on all abdominal segments and on the metathorax (only located on abdominal segments VI and VII). Despite these small differences, it is here considered that these two species are one and the same and so the name C. lizeri (Fonseca) is here made a junior synonym of M. marianus (Cockerell) , syn. nov.

It is clear that this species belongs to neither Paralecanium nor Mesolecanium (for a redescription of the type species of Mesolecanium , see Hodgson, 1994). In addition, in possessing three types of ventral tubular ducts, it is clear that it does not belong to either the Paralecaniini (despite having the eye-spot displaced onto the dorsum) nor to the genus Coccus which has only 1 type of ventral tubular duct. The position of the eyespot on M. marianus , along with the rather broad marginal setae, may be why Cockerell suggested it was a Paralecanium species. The presence of three types of ventral tubular ducts suggests a possible relationship with the Pulvinariini, but it does not fit into any of the current genera and has not been recorded as producing an ovisac. Here we raise a new genus, Mariacoccus Hodgson & Williams gen. n. for it, although its wider relationships are uncertain.

Figures

FIGURE 59. Mariacoccus marianus (Cockerell), adult female.